To think councils should move people to smaller properties when kids move out?

[Faithin]

There's a huge lack of 3 bedroom social housing where I live (and everywhere I think?)
a lot of the people living in the 3 bed places are usually just 1 or 2 adults as the kids have grown up and moved out. Meanwhile there's lots of young families overcrowded in 1 and 2 bed flats with no garden etc
aibu to think those that actually need the space should be in the houses and those who don't should be made to downsize?
as the waiting list is so long, what tends to happen is peoples children are in their teens by the time they are moved into a 3 bed property, the grow up and leave within a couple of years and the parents stay, so the vast majority are under-occupied.

@ArgieBargie where would you send me to? There is literally nowhere within 8 miles of where I used to live to send me

My life and friends are in the village. It took me a long time to settle after leaving my ex. Why should I be sent away from where my support is?

And why do I want access to social housing? Cos it’s a ridiculously sweet deal, I can see that very clearly! Sadly I earn well enough to not force my child into overcrowded accommodation so will always be so far down the list for it never to materialise for me (a broader point there that if you CAN wait as long as needed you probably never actually needed it anyway). I’d love a nice 4 bed I could pass to my son while never needing to cough up for a deposit or a market rate mortgage and have someone else do all my repairs for me. But given I can see there is no way to provide that for everyone in the UK, I’m absolutely happily that doesn’t include me as I work hard and can manage independently. I think it should be for people who need it, who are in crisis or who have no alternatives. And what they’re provided with should be good quality, safe and secure. I’d be ashamed to take that from someone who needed it.

That’s obscene.

Same here
Never heard of that at all.

Because that’s life. It’s hard sometimes. 8 miles is not that far; I commute over 30 miles to work (I now drive but that used to be a series of trains and buses). Until recently I had little support network here as I had to leave the area I’m originally from as there were no jobs there. Life isn’t always ideal, sometimes you have to set up somewhere new and manage. Or you choose not to do that, which means paying your own way. I’m talking in general; I haven’t read all your posts (nor all of @MessyBunPersonified which is why I didn’t know a lot of her kids are still at home, though why I’d be interested to know that is beyond me). I’m sorry if you have health issues or disabilities that mean you rely more than usual on a support network though and at the same time have limited opportunities to earn enough money to give yourself an alternative. It’s partly for people in that situation why I think people who are under-occupying houses who earn well and whose only additional ‘need’ was having children should be moved on to smaller properties / charged market rent. That way what we could offer people who actually need it would be a lot better.

Maybe you should apply for social housing. I think they give extra points for being sanctimonious, that will get you right to the top of the list 🙄

Exactly this. I’m from the NW and £50k household is comfortably middle class. They should at least be charged market rent and ideally evicted (with significant notice of even a year to extend the cushiness social housing tenants are used to). There are people who need that house and this couple aren’t it.

@ArgieBargie this village has 2 empty council houses at the moment. People don't want to live here. There is no public transport so if you don't have a car it's impossible. Kids have a 90 minute bus journey to school. Each way. It's very run down. So much so my DC got a contextual offer to university.

The way to build up communities isn't by making them transitory - it's by giving people somewhere to feel connected to and put down roots.

I took the council house because I was desperate. My kids deserved the chance to have stability.

The solution isn't to take that from me.

If high tax earners are being forced to pay more then the government needs to ensure that money is spent appropriately - that includes rehousing people and moving them on when they are in a position to pay rent privately so others who need the council houses more can have access. Isn't this how it's meant to work?

And for the record. I left where I was to take this house. I moved almost 20 miles. Because there was a house here. And I had nowhere else to live at the time.

As soon as I was able, I bought and moved. But not everyone is able to do that.

The house gave me roots and stability at a time that I needed it and most importantly it enabled my children to have stability which helped them

Sorry - not this house. The council house.

‘Random strangers stuck in whatever they’re stuck in is of no concern to me’ and there we are. ‘I’m alright Jack’ indeed. Rank.

So it was valuable for you when you needed it and when you wanted something different you sorted yourself out. That’s how this is supposed to work; that’s good. People always have choices, though they like to make out they don’t.

Not everyone is able to make the choices I did @ArgieBargie And I was only able to do what I have due to the stability the house gave me

Exactly this. It’s the taxpayer’s house and it’s lent for as long as you need that size house (which is already v generous security) and once you don’t need toast size any more then you will be lent another that is actually suitable for your needs OR you can rent or buy privately. Literally no reasonable argument against this that aren’t just ‘I like ‘my’ house so screw everyone else’.

I know not everyone can and so I think housing stock should be better protected for exactly those people to benefit. And if people knew that if they wanted to pass a property down to their children or have final choice over the size and type of property they live in then they need to try and make choices to enable that I think more people would. Lifetime tenancies should be scrapped (tbh I don’t see why not existing ones as well as new ones, the terms on my student loan are being changed all the time years after I took it out) and social housing presented as being needs based and time limited. That’s still a fantastic resource for the people who do need it and the people who don’t will soon move on.

I'm not sure HA would agree that they are tax payers houses! And many people pay their own rent. Is that the same for private rentals that are paid for by hb? I don't think so

Tenants are also tax payers! They aren't being given free houses and if they are in receipt of housing benefit then it's because HB is needed!

This, 100%.

And for the ‘it’s not subsidised’ brigade; you’re being pedantic. It’s always significantly under market rates; councils SHOULD make profit on

So not subsidised then? That cleared that up

It’s an unpopular opinion but I agree.

Yes it’s their home. But they are still tenants.

Yeah ,you have no idea do you ?
You can't just pass the house down there is only one succession of tenancy so I haveca joint tenancy with my dh If I die before him he succeeds the tenancy as a single tenant and vice versa, it can't continue to be passed down ,as for your subsidy bull shit how about areas ,of the country where social rent is comparable to private?
Embarrassing people talk such nonsense.

Not in my HA they are not I have a two bedroom house which I pay less for then a three bedroom ,and the one bedroom flats opposite pay less than I do.

It wouldn't help her financially as 1 bed flats are the same rent as 3 bed houses. All social housing properties in each council/Housing association have the same rate

That is ridiculous, they should be priced according to size. Of course there is no incentive to move, who in earth would happily pay the same money for a worse standard of living in order to help random strangers? No one

They are in most H/A,s .